Daron - In a perfect world you would be correct. But unforunately amateur radio coordination is far from perfect.
Regarding some of the systems that the ORRC believe are uncoordinated which I am affilated, that is because they do not recognize the 2 other coordinating bodies in Oregon. That is thier problem, not anyone elses. If the ORRC had been operating professionally and effectively, there would have no reason to start the other coordination bodies. ------ Original Message ------ Received: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:11:29 PM PST From: "Daron Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > First, this 'call the FCC first' approach is exactly what we don't want to > be doing. If you have listened to folks at the FCC level, particularly > Riley Hollingsworth, he has been preaching for us to be 'self policing'. We > need to get along and share the spectrum. If we are constantly whining to > the FCC about things that we should be able to resolve ourselves, they won't > be too sympathetic when it comes time to complain about things we can't > resolve. What you have described is certainly not an FCC issue, it is a > coordination issue. > > Second, while coordination is not required, it is expected. Much like the > band plans, you can operate anywhere you want within the law...but if you > are operating FM in the SSB weak signal portion, you can expect to not make > friends, not be respected and generally create havoc. How do you avoid > that? By coordinating, respecting the 'boundaries' and sharing the > resources we have. > > In our database, we have many entries marked as 'info' only. Mr. Mackey can > probably elaborate on these, as I believe he may still be involved in > several un-coordinated systems. As such, we make the effort not to > coordinate other stations on the same frequencies even though some prefer to > not participate in the coordination process. Frankly, we are being polite > and trying to share the spectrum and not cause an issue for any operators. > That being said, as spectrum becomes harder to find for new applicants, and > specifically in the light of new digital (GMSK, P25, etc.) modes which > deserve a chance to operate, at some point we will have little choice but to > coordinate new applicants in the spaces that are left. Some of those spaces > may be occupied by folks who operate a repeater, but choose not to > participate in coordination. As such, they have little protection from > other users. > > The letters I have seen from the FCC regarding interference between > coordinated and non coordinated repeaters clearly favors the coordinated > repeater, and the FCC seems to ask the non-coordinated station to resolve > the interference or cease operation. I don't get a chance to read all the > enforcement letters, but if you have seen some that say something to the > effect that "the first guy to put up something on a frequency whether it is > coordinated or not gets protection, and any new comer, coordinated or not, > must solve the interference or cease operation" I'd really love to read it. > > We have coordinated people on frequencies only to get a report back from > them that it seems to be occupied, often by a non-coordinated station. As > long as I have been on the board, I believe we have marked that information > in our database, and found a new pair for the applicant to try. It is not > the coordination groups responsibility to 'suspect the system is still > operating even if the coordination has expired'. Conversely, it is the > coordination holders responsibility to update their information with the > coordinating body. In Oregon, the bylaws of the ORRC were voted on by all > members (any repeater owner is eligible to be a member and be coordinated) > and require the organization to de-coordinate users after 3 years of failure > to update the status of their repeaters systems. We simply can't do what > needs to be done if we do not have the current data, and we can't get the > current data if we don't get the users to tell us what they're doing. > > My name is Daron Wilson, I am the chairman of the Oregon Region Relay > Council, Inc. and I approve this message. > > 73 > > >
